"Off-topic"/Free-form discussions > the Rose article
It's hard for me to recognize exactly which parts of Rose's article you consider to be "rants about racism," because you haven't pointed to any particular quotes or page numbers. I'd be very curious to explore your perspective on this article more fully, and I hope you'll help me by explaining more. First of all, though, I want to THANK you for reading the whole article, even though I only required two sections in the first half of the article for this course. And also, a big thank you for speaking your mind here, and giving your opinion of the article! This is the kind of interaction I was hoping would evolve in the course.
When discussing venue owners and their decisions not to play rap, she is asking us to connect those decisions to the question "how are...crimes contextualized, labeled?" when they take place at rap concerts, and "in what already existing categories" are incidents of violence at rap concerts framed? (133) These questions are important to ask, not because of any sense that venue owners are racist, but because the media coverage of violence at rap concerts seems to have resulted in differential treatment OF venue owners BY insurance companies. If insurance companies cancel coverage of rap venues, it's obvious that venue owners will refuse to host rap artists. This is not necessarily because they fear black fans, but because they fear insurance company persecution. Rose writes "Venue resistance to rap music is driven by both economic calculations and the hegemonic media interpretation of rap fans..." -- in a way, she is taking your side! She shows that venue owners have a business to run, and they have to concerned about their "image" -- an image that is constructed by biased media representations of race.
Rose also interviewed an anonymous talent agent "Richard" who believed that some (not all) venue owners feared violence at rap concerts. (Even Richard did not say that those venue owners were racist.) According to Richard, venue owners say "Fuck you, who cares...you're not coming in here" when they are accused of discrimination. Rose says that this conversation *Richard* reported describes "the scope of power these owners have over access to large public urban spaces and the racially exclusionary silent policy" that governs booking at concert venues. In this section of the article, Rose is making an observation about how race plays a role in media representations and venue-owners reactions to those representations. She argues that as long as black youths are constructed in the media as a "threat to social order", their gathering in large numbers will "be viewed as dangerous events."
This last point from Rose may be controversial, and I'd love to hear student thoughts about it. Do large numbers of black rap fans make white authorities nervous in a way that large numbers of white heavy metal fans do not? What is the source of public perceptions that rap concerts pose a threat? How are those perceptions mediated in the news? How does that affect public perceptions of musical styles and their social meanings? Has Rose gone too far in illustrating a cultural divide between white and black fans of popular music?
Ben Carson
Dude, Rose does NOT say that "the person stabbing someone else is not a big deal," and she does not say that "because I am black I felt my rights had been violated" when she was regarded with suspicion. This passage of the article is a personal narrative, designed to show subtle aspects of the way black people feel when they are under police surveillance. Those are unique and personal feelings, describing individual situations -- they are NOT generalizations. They are designed to support a larger argument about the meaning of black rap fans reacting in different ways to the policing of public expression. They are not an accusation of racism.
KathyAllison
That article was soooooo long and sooooo bias. At first the article seemed enlightening and very interesting, but by the end i just felt angry. The article had some interesting points about racism and how rap effects society, but Rose breaks of from her main point about rap influencing society and just rants about racism. I hate racism just as much as the next man, but it seems she is just repeating herself and not conveying new ideas. She tells the audience for example all venue owners are racists for not playing rap, then right after that she makes the point that many people couldn't afford it because of the increase of insurance. She pretty much just lies to the audience and gives them false facts. Hip-hop is my favorite genre, but if i was an owner of a venue and i couldnt afford to have rap artists perform i wouldn't allow them to perform. Does this make me a racist? ahhhhhhhh. Also she talks about how the media criminalize and make these boys who stole and stabbed someone into monsters. She also states how it brings on a bad name for black people. I can understand when she says the media blew it out of preparation, but it is infuriating that she says the person stabbing someone else is not a big deal. She also speaks about how she was searched and there was tension. This does not make sense, big venues always have people getting patted down. At almost every concert ive been to i have been patted down. She even says for some people this not be a big deal but since im black i felt my rights had been violated. I agree that asking about a nail filer is extreme but she let her through without taking it away and there was also a stabbing at another concert why wouldn't they pat someone down. ahh there are more things that are frustrating that i can not remember but ahhh so annoying.